- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did the NIT used to be “bigger”?
Posted on 4/1/25 at 10:14 pm to themetalreb
Posted on 4/1/25 at 10:14 pm to themetalreb
It's 1 year older than the NCAA tournament and was considered more prestigious until the mid-50s or so. Then it was still considered fairly prestigious until probably 85 when the NCAA tournament expanded to 64 when it lost what little luster it had left. Now it is basically a glorified consolation prize/extra practice opportunity.
It is a good measuring stick if you are in a rebuild or Tournament drought as an indicator your team is progressing.
It is a good measuring stick if you are in a rebuild or Tournament drought as an indicator your team is progressing.
0
Posted on 4/2/25 at 8:34 am to themetalreb
Back in the 40’s, it was the premier championship game in all of college basketball. The Saint Louis Billikens won it in 1948 and became the first team to be named #1 in the AP poll the following year.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 10:36 am to McMillan
quote:
The Saint Louis Billikens
Posted on 4/2/25 at 11:12 am to themetalreb
Until 1985 the NCAA tournament was only 48 teams i believe?
NIT was much more reputable back then
NIT was much more reputable back then
Posted on 4/2/25 at 12:23 pm to themetalreb
It was the first (and, ergo, the biggest).
Issue was it was just that, an invitational.
NCAA became a play-in and open to way more teams. NIT quickly became the "also-ran."
Issue was it was just that, an invitational.
NCAA became a play-in and open to way more teams. NIT quickly became the "also-ran."
Posted on 4/2/25 at 1:05 pm to themetalreb
quote:
Did the NIT used to be “bigger”?
Athletes used to enjoy playing the sport for its own sake and fanbases used to have love for the school and the game, so while it might not have been “bigger” by whatever measurement is used, it was certainly better.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 3:20 pm to Funky Tide 8
The one and only !
Posted on 4/2/25 at 4:08 pm to themetalreb
quote:
Or has it always been arse?
When only conference champions made the NCAA tourney it had a case to be as good as the NCAA tourney if not better, depending on who was upset in conference tournaments
Posted on 4/2/25 at 7:39 pm to themetalreb
In the 1940s and 50s, the NIT Champ was considered better than the NCAA Champ:
"It was the most glamorous of the post-season tournaments and generally had the better teams. The winner of the National Invitation Tournament was regarded as more of a national champion than the actual, titular, national champion, or winner of the NCAA tournament." - Bill Bradley
"It was the most glamorous of the post-season tournaments and generally had the better teams. The winner of the National Invitation Tournament was regarded as more of a national champion than the actual, titular, national champion, or winner of the NCAA tournament." - Bill Bradley
This post was edited on 4/2/25 at 7:40 pm
Posted on 4/2/25 at 7:42 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
Tell me how the NIT rustled your jimmies, I’m curious
That guy hates everything. I've never seen him post something positive about anything. This forum is his Bitch Session Shangri-La
Posted on 4/2/25 at 8:05 pm to themetalreb
Like bowl games, it’s obsolete in the transfer portal/nil era. Teams probably don’t even have enough players to field a team.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:11 pm to Jack Ruby
Bama lost the finals once I think
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News